Was this for Martin? If so, it should have read "not a Christian." If you were talking about all atheists, then the answer is "no." Some people are atheists because of religious hypocrites--such as Lobdell's latest tesimony. And I agree that stance is not rational. But I personally am not a Christian because no one yet has illustrated that there is any truth to the foundational claims of the belief. I am an atheist, however, because no one has offered evidence to illustrate that the claim "god exists" is based in objective, consensus, existent reality.

And it is my understanding that in order to be a Christian--or even to not be an atheist--I must have some sort of conviction that a god exists. And I do not.

I guess I should give credit where I got the chart. Here is a better link to it anyway.

Traci said "I personally am not a Christian because no one yet has illustrated that there is any truth to the foundational claims of the belief. I am an atheist, however, because no one has offered evidence to illustrate that the claim "god exists" is based in objective, consensus, existent reality."

Martin said "I'm still waiting for a theist to give an example of a single moral act that could not be undertaken equally by both a believer and a nonbeliever."

You two seem to be standing on the sidelines with your arms folded saying "prove it" but that is now how God set the rules. You must get in the game. You must go to God on his terms not yours and he will manifest himself to you as promised. John 14:21

You complain when a Christian fails your view of a Christian. Your like holding up your finger and say "ah ha!" they are not holy. Well, you are right according to the Bible there is none good no not one. The Christians are in fact justified by their faith in Jesus and nothing else. They didn't earn some mystical power above all others they are just justified. They are washed of the blood and are made holy for heaven. You standing on the sidelines will get you left out of the game. You say prove it and I will believe. Let me ask this: Why are you depending on man to help your salvation. Maybe that is what the real problem here. You cannot depend on man(kind) for your salvation. You must go to God directly.

Remember if you go to man to show you God you will be disappointed forever. Hope this helps you find God, if any of you are truly searching for him.

Martin don't get angry and call me a troll (whatever that means) I am just a concerned citizen for your welfare.

Anonymous wrote: You two seem to be standing on the sidelines with your arms folded saying "prove it" but that is now how God set the rules. You must get in the game. You must go to God on his terms not yours and he will manifest himself to you as promised.

Okay, anon, I'm going to repeat your passage back to you, but change one key word.

You two seem to be standing on the sidelines with your arms folded saying "prove it" but that is now how Zeus set the rules. You must get in the game. You must go to Zeus on his terms not yours and he will manifest himself to you as promised.

Now do you see how silly it sounds to us? You have failed to understand one very rudimentary point: we don't believe your God exists. We do not think there is adequate evidence to support claims of your God's existence. Therefore, telling us to "go to" your God "on his terms" is simply asking us to do something absurd and delusional. Why should we be interested in following rules you say were set down by a being whom we have no reason to believe is anything other than imaginary?

Yes, you're dam-tootin' we're demanding proof, because, regardless of how you think your God's rules work, that is how the rules of science and rational inquiry work. If someone makes a positive claim, they bear 100% of the burden of proof for that claim. Those who disbelieve the claim bear none, and are entirely justified in refraining from believing that claim if no adequate evidence is forthcoming. This holds true for claims about your God, just as it holds true for claims about Zeus or Thor or Shiva, or someone who says a UFO landed in his yard and left no trace of its passing.

If someone tells me he was visited by aliens, it's his job to prove to me that he was; it is not my job to prove to him that he wasn't. Likewise, if you claim there is an invisible deity in the sky that I have some obligation to worship, then it's not my job to prove to you that deity doesn't exist. It is your job to prove to me that it does. Trying to squirm out of this responsibility by simply declaring "that's not how it works" is a lame dodge. This is how it works, whether you like it or not. Either make with the evidence, or don't bother us with your God claims.

Well, you are right according to the Bible there is none good no not one. The Christians are in fact justified by their faith in Jesus and nothing else. They didn't earn some mystical power above all others they are just justified. They are washed of the blood and are made holy for heaven.

Thanks. You've just confirmed the moral bankruptcy of the Christian belief system. Christianity has no moral precepts to offer that have not already been conceived in non-Christian cultures by people simply applying reason to the understanding of consequences. All Christianity does offer are justifications. This is how Christianity has been such a staunch enabler of atrocities over the centuries. This is how you get so many moral hypocrites among the intensely religious; people like Benny Hinn, Fred Phelps, Tom Delay, the KKK. Christianity allows them to do whatever they please, and yet still pat themselves on the back that they are "washed in the blood" or some such nonsense, and that they're still morally superior to everyone else even though their actions prove otherwise. Sounds like a belief system tailor-made for the corrupt, if you ask me.

Let me ask this: Why are you depending on man to help your salvation.

Straw man. When have you ever heard me say I was doing this, or attempting "salvation" of any kind? I'm a regular guy living a regular life in a flawed world. If I do wrong, I accept responsibility for it and do my best to learn my lesson. If I want something, I don't drop to my knees and beg an imaginary friend for favors. I work hard to earn it. If I cannot earn it, I'm not meant to have it yet. Even if I agreed with you that "salvation" was a valid and necessary goal to pursue, it would be something I would have to attain in this world through my own merits. Thing is, I don't possess the self-absorption and sense of entitlement you find among the religious, who feel they deserve eternal bliss if they bow and scrape to a god slavishly enough. Life is short, and it's the only one we get, so it's incumbent upon us to make the best of what we have here and now.

Remember if you go to man to show you God you will be disappointed forever.

Hmm. Seems that millions of Christians "go to man" (their pastor at church) to get shown their God every Sunday. Do you mean to imply that churches should not exist? If so, we actually agree on something! :-)

Hope this helps you find God, if any of you are truly searching for him.

Well, I must say in honesty, no, I am not searching for your God any more than I am searching for Vishnu. But I am willing to be persuaded...by evidence. So while I'm sure we all appreciate your concern, you'll have to do better than you have done so far if you'd like to help us find your God.

>You two seem to be standing on the sidelines with your arms folded saying "prove it" but that is now how God set the rules. You must get in the game. You must go to God on his terms not yours and he will manifest himself to you as promised. John 14:21

This fails to explain the myriad ex-Christians on the planet--of which I am one. I have examined the claims of Christianity, and they have come up wanting. I'm not simply saying "prove it"--I went out to seek on my own, and found that in the end, there was no existent god that anyone could support. There is the Pantheist god, which exists, but I am not sure it's fair to call it "god." But as far as god being a being, separate and apart from known existence, there is simply no evidence for it, no reason to believe it, and no experience that anyone has ever shown to be caused by "god."

Martin said: "(Me)Let me ask this: Why are you depending on man to help your salvation.

Straw man. When have you ever heard me say I was doing this, or attempting "salvation" of any kind? "

Find I will reverse it. Why did you let man destroy your relationship with the Lord? Then depend on that same "man(kind)" to persuade you?

"I'm a regular guy living a regular life in a flawed world."

So you do believe this is a fallen creation? How can it be morally flawed when the universe is universal and the laws are perfect? How do you account for the flaws in a glorious universal universe?

You said" If someone tells me he was visited by aliens, it's his job to prove to me that he was; it is not my job to prove to him that he wasn't."

Says who? You? you claim fallacy but who said I have to prove anything to you at all? IN a debate maybe but not real life. If I tell you your girlfriend(boyfriend) is cheating on you and i saw it with my own eyes, it is just information I am passing on to help you. I am not burdened to prove it to you at all. If I tell you I won the lotto and you say prove it. I would just say nope. I am not under your authority at all. If I tell you that you may go to hell for your stubbornness and resistance to His authority and you say prove it in defiance (I will try my best at first) in the end I will just say nope. It truly is up to God to reveal himself to you.

You said "Straw man. When have you ever heard me say I was doing this, or attempting "salvation" of any kind? I'm a regular guy living a regular life in a flawed world. If I do wrong, I accept responsibility for it and do my best to learn my lesson. If I want something, I don't drop to my knees and beg an imaginary friend for favors. I work hard to earn it. If I cannot earn it, I'm not meant to have it yet. Even if I agreed with you that "salvation" was a valid and necessary goal to pursue, it would be something I would have to attain in this world through my own merits. Thing is, I don't possess the self-absorption and sense of entitlement you find among the religious, who feel they deserve eternal bliss if they bow and scrape to a god slavishly enough. Life is short, and it's the only one we get, so it's incumbent upon us to make the best of what we have here and now."

OK front man. Now count how many times you said "I" and you may begin to understand why you haven't found God. It isn't about you, it's about Him and His authority, not yours.

You said "Seems that millions of Christians "go to man" (their pastor at church) to get shown their God every Sunday. Do you mean to imply that churches should not exist? If so, we actually agree on something! :-)"

Yes, we agree on something. Religion is man made and not of God. It is not Christianity that is a religion but Catholicism, Protestantism, Lutheranism are religions.( notice the "ism") Your salvation is not in a church (building) either. Stop depending on mankind.

You also said "But I am willing to be persuaded...by evidence." (From man you mean) see what I am getting at here?

You said "Well, I must say in honesty, no, I am not searching for your God any more than I am searching for Vishnu."

OK then we can agree that you are here to get others to back up your views. (need man's acceptance) Or are you here to wage War against Jesus Christ the Lord of the Universe?

I ask "what is your name"

Martin says "Martin"

I say "I don't believe you"

Martin says "here is my ID"

I say "that doesn't prove anything"

See I can do what you do also. This will produce no results, wait is that what your trying to do here at this blog, just talk away (deny) things until there is no results. Hmm something to think about. It doesn't matter what you believe what matters is the truth, and consequences.

Again mankind didn't prove it so you will not believe in the Almighty. Does that really make sense to you?

You then say "and no experience that anyone has ever shown to be caused by "god."

Again mankind failed you. I will try to help you out, mankind is a fallen creation and they are doomed for failure because of evil. Mankind will not be triumphant until evil is removed. Yes, you are right mankind will never help you find God you must trust God to do it. Ask him and he will. He will pour his grace down on you like rain. Man doesn't love you as much as He does. Trust the one that has the power and can do something about it. The Lord Jesus Christ.

Find I will reverse it. Why did you let man destroy your relationship with the Lord? Then depend on that same "man(kind)" to persuade you?

As usual, all your questions are loaded with bogus assumptions. When did you hear me say I "let man destroy my relationship with the Lord"? You're big on putting words in people's mouths, aren't you? I guess that's all you can do when you haven't got evidence to present — just hand-waving.

I did have a church upbringing, and I do have fond memories of those days. As for having a "relationship" with the "Lord," though...well, it was my realization that no such relationship existed, because there was no credible evidence that a Lord existed, that led me to nonbelief. That I had some good times at church socials is irrelevant. Once I decided that, unlike the Christians I knew, I actually cared about whether or not what I believed was true (or at least supportable by strong evidence), it was only honesty with myself that led me naturally to atheism.

So you do believe this is a fallen creation? How can it be morally flawed when the universe is universal and the laws are perfect? How do you account for the flaws in a glorious universal universe?

"Glorious universal universe"! I do love that crazy religion-speak! :-)

I don't believe this is a "fallen creation," because that is a religious concept and thus invalid. It's not the universe that's "morally flawed." It's people, and their moral flaws have nothing whatsoever to do with the laws of the universe (physics, chemistry, etc.). We are simply imperfect. Morality is a social construct, and the laws we follow are largely the result of thousands of years of trial and error as human beings have sought to get along and develop successful civilizations. That people do not make the best moral decisions all the time is due to our own fallibility, and is our own responsibility. It has nothing to do with the universe, any more than it has to do with the sky being blue and grass being green. You're conflating unrelated things.

Christians actually have a much harder time with the question you bring up than atheists do. We understand people, as products of nature, are imperfect, while you have to reconcile how a perfect deity made an imperfect species of people supposedly "in his image." You have that whole Problem of Evil thing to deal with. And you haven't successfuly dealt with it despite 2000 years of highly motivated theodicy.

Says who? You? you claim fallacy but who said I have to prove anything to you at all? IN a debate maybe but not real life. If I tell you your girlfriend(boyfriend) is cheating on you and i saw it with my own eyes, it is just information I am passing on to help you. I am not burdened to prove it to you at all. If I tell you I won the lotto and you say prove it. I would just say nope. I am not under your authority at all.

Then do not be surprised if, from here on out, I decline to take seriously anything you say. Not only that, but why should anybody believe anything you say or consider you a trustworthy person in any way, shape or form? Sorry, but I have no choice but to get really harsh here. You sound like nothing more than a person who's a pathological liar and just as pathologically proud of it. If you really think that "real life" is a place where you can spout whatever crap you like and not back it up, you're a bigger clod than I've already taken you for.

Allow me to show you just how stupid you're being. If you think this is true:

If I tell you your girlfriend(boyfriend) is cheating on you and i saw it with my own eyes, it is just information I am passing on to help you. I am not burdened to prove it to you at all.

...then you are simply out of your mind. Let me give you a "real life" example to explain the problem here. You tell me my girlfriend is cheating on me. I ask for proof. You refuse to present any. I confront my girlfriend, who flatly denies it, and manages to account for her whereabouts over the last several days. I ask you again, where is the proof that my girlfriend is cheating on me. Maintaining your stupidity, you repeat, "Nope. I am not under your authority at all."

So guess what happens?

My girlfriend and I sue you for slander. And we win.

So if you continue to stubbornly insist that you can walk up to anyone at all, make any idiotic and ridiculous claim you can think up, and then proudly refuse to back your claims up, then prepare to pay the consequences. Not only will you be a coward (for refusing to back your claims up) and a completely immoral fool (for thinking you can do this to a person in the first place without having to face any consequences), you'll be a cowardly immoral fool in some legal hot water. All of which you will deserve.

If I tell you that you may go to hell for your stubbornness and resistance to His authority and you say prove it in defiance (I will try my best at first) in the end I will just say nope. It truly is up to God to reveal himself to you.

Again, you are essentially throwing any vestige of credibility you could ever have on any subject out the window. Not only that, but it's a pretty clear indication that your beliefs don't seem to mean as much to you as you think they do. After all, if you're just willing to give up after, as you say, trying your "best" (and if what you've offered so far is your best, I must say, you need a new hobby), then why should I care about your God, since you obviously don't?

Stephen Rogers posted not long ago on the subject of "half-hearted evangelism," and you're a prime example of it. You turn up here, make claims about your God, and collapse like a cake in the oven upon my very first request for evidence, all on the preposterous basis that you think you can waltz through life never having to account for anything you say. You have no conviction, no sincerity, no honesty, no integrity. You want to tell us we're wrong for being unbelievers, but you not only fail but flatly decline to give us reasons to think you're right.

Here's the deal, anon. Nobody is obligated to believe as you do. I never cease to be amazed by the inability of Christians like yourself to grasp this very basic point.

If I were God, I'd be embarrassed to have you as one of my followers. If you can't even give an unbeliever any good evidence — hell, even any good arguments — for your God's existence, why are you bothering to come here? Why are you wasting our time? Why are you wasting your own life, if your beliefs mean so little to you?

OK front man. Now count how many times you said "I" and you may begin to understand why you haven't found God. It isn't about you, it's about Him and His authority, not yours.

So you say. But I don't believe in your God, and, given your declaration that you don't think you have to support your claims, I see no reason to take this statement seriously. I could ask you to support this statement, but you'd just refuse, right? So you have no credibility with anything you say. Unless you start giving me reasons to consider you credible. Care to rethink your position yet? If not, you're wasting my time and your breath.

Religion is man made and not of God. It is not Christianity that is a religion but Catholicism, Protestantism, Lutheranism are religions.( notice the "ism") Your salvation is not in a church (building) either. Stop depending on mankind.

Well, actually, Christianity is a religion, and Catholicism, Protestantism, Lutheranism are denominations of that religion. Something is not defined as a religion because it ends in the suffix "ism."

Again, you're wrecking what meager shreds of credibility you have left with everything you write. You've now revealed you know less about Christianity than we do. You're not doing so hot.

You also said "But I am willing to be persuaded...by evidence." (From man you mean) see what I am getting at here?

Uh...moron...where else am I supposed to get it from? At least I know mankind exists. It was man who wrote that Bible of yours. You're saying I have to get the evidence for a being whom I don't believe exists directly from that being. It's hilarious. Try looking up the word "tautology" someday.

Actually, though, this does bring up a good point. If your God was willing to manifest himself directly to Saul of Tarsus (who was not only a nonbeliever but an active persecuter of Christians) on the road to Damascus, then I see no reason why he cannot do the same for me. So let's see him. Come on down. I'm ready.

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....

Oh well.

OK then we can agree that you are here to get others to back up your views. (need man's acceptance) Or are you here to wage War against Jesus Christ the Lord of the Universe?

Uh, no, I'm fine with backing up my own views, thanks very much...which demarcates the difference between the two of us. Heck, I'm even willing to sign my name to what I write. Someday you may develop such qualities as honesty, courage and integrity and do the same. Until then, I'm just here to let folks know how powerfully irrational religious faith is, and guys like you are an enormous help in that regard. Much obliged. really. :-)

No, allow me to finish you off as I skewer your final eruption of foolishness.

I ask "what is your name"

Martin says "Martin"

I say "I don't believe you"

Martin says "here is my ID"

I say "that doesn't prove anything"

See I can do what you do also.

If you think this is a valid analogy to how our discussion has been going so far, we can add dishonesty to your already lengthy list of character flaws. Not only have you not shown me anything whatsoever in the way of evidence (even comparable to a driver's license) for the existence of your God, you've flatly denied you have an obligation to do so. So for you to attempt to claim that you have shown evidence and that I have just ignored it is a flat, reprehensible lie, since you've proudly proclaimed you don't need evidence.

This will produce no results, wait is that what your trying to do here at this blog, just talk away (deny) things until there is no results.

Talk away what? Deny what? You've offered nothing. You've said you don't have to offer anything. So why do I need to deny the claims of a person who already has zero credibility and is perversely proud of that fact?

It doesn't matter what you believe what matters is the truth, and consequences.

POW! There goes another irony meter.

This is easily the most dishonest thing you've said in our whole exchange. You've already admitted you don't care about either truth or consequences. You think you can say whatever you like to anyone, not back it up, and not have to suffer any consequences at all. You lack a number of essentials that most people at least manage to develop to a basic, functioning degree by the time they reach adulthood: you possess neither honesty nor personal integrity, you don't know how to distinguish between a fact and a belief, you don't understand how knowledge and understanding is gained or how to tell the difference between truth and lies, and you don't seem to comprehend or even to care all that much about what you claim to believe about your God.

And I suspect you'll read all of that and still not understand why I don't take you seriously, and you'll just come spouting more empty hot air about your imaginary friend.

>Again mankind didn't prove it so you will not believe in the Almighty. Does that really make sense to you?

My point isn't that I only looked at the evidence _people_ were able to present. My point was that it's _people_ who make the claim that a god exists in the first place. In other words--no one BUT people are saying there is a god. It's not up to "dogs" to prove god, for example--because it's not dogs that are going around making up all sorts of attributes for god. So, because it is wholly people who are responsible for defining "god"--it is people who are saying, "god exists, and here is the information regarding the god I am saying exists: [and here they fill in the parameters]."

You are making a claim god exists for example. And you provided a Bible verse (or another anonymous poster did?); But that's a claim by people as well. The claim that god will manifest is a claim made by people about god. So, if we try it and it fails--you say, "It's just people who failed." But I'm saying: There is nobody else to fail, because ALL our information about god is coming from people. And if you accept the Bible, then your info about god is also coming from people. I don't see why it's odd or wrong to examine claims to see if they're lies or true? I think that's everyone's obligation if they are to be considered as mature, responsible adults. If you believe in god, then you must have also examined these claims--to come to a conclusion that you agree that this god exists. I don't understand then how is it that you can put forward that it is somehow inappropriate for others to do the same. And if you don't examine claims that have heavy implications for your life before accepting them, then you are what is normally defined as "gullible."

God _needs_ to be defined by people in order to be accepted or rejected by anyone--or even considered or discussed on any level; otherwise, nobody would be able to say what we are accepting when we accept that "god exists"; if god is not defined, that's the same as saying "X exists"--and it then the claim of existence means nothing whatsoever.

So, you are correct that people have failed--they have failed to present or provide any definition whatsoever for any god that corresponds to existent, consensus, objective reality.

But I agree that there is more to investigate than "what people can prove"--but certainly not any more than what people can define. If we can't define a thing, then we can't have knowledge of it. If I tell you X exists, you cannot know what I'm even claiming if I can't tell you what X is. So, god starts with people, specifically how people define god.

But we can certainly investigate by examining things beyond words and people; however, this also yields nothing that indicates a god exists. Looking for Heaven yields nothing. Looking for angels yields nothing. Examining claims regarding the power of prayer yields nothing. Examing claims regarding the power of faith healers yields nothing. And so it goes on forever as the claims mount, ironically so does the lack of evidence. Investigating these claims and definitions yields nothing--there is nothing there to examine.

It is no different than examining the claim that a fairy exists. You'll come up against nothing, nothing, nothing, until you're finally forced to ask: What makes anyone think fairies exist?

When I say "there was no existent god that _anyone_ could support," I'm referencing "anyone" as the people who provided the definition for the god; I am not claiming that those people have provided all the evidence one can examine in regard to this claim (which is how you appear to be taking my statement). And yes, these people have failed miserably to show any reason why they have defined god as they have, or why they believed such a thing ever existed; however, even when one examines reality for oneself--not just what other people have shown me--there is simply nothing to indicate a god.

The question becomes then: WHY are people making a claim a god exists in the first place? WHAT are they looking at? And WHAT is god (since it's obviously not what they're all claiming it is)?

Anything you can tell me about your god is a mere human claim. And anything you have accepted about god comes from a mere human claim (either your own claims or someone else's). I know this, because if you actually had something objective we could both examine, we wouldn't be having this dialogue. If your god actually existed (manifested in consensus, objective, existent reality), we'd be examining it right now.

If I am to accept or reject your god, I have to first hear your claims about what this god is. And then I can examine your claims. You don't have to "prove" them to me. I can examine them independently; but if I find that your claims have no basis in reality, then your claims have failed. Describe it however you like--"human failing" or whatever else. But that's the only way anyone can make a valid determination of truth versus falsehood regarding any claim whatsoever. And I tend to believe people should value truth over falsehood enough to examine extraordinary claims before believing them.

When a person says "there is a god," it is not only reasonable, but necessary, to ask them what exactly they're calling "god," and then to expect the thing they are defining to actually be examinable, if they claim it "exists" and is real in the sense that other existent items are real and exist (existent, objective, consensus reality).

I grasp that ideas are intangible and also exist--but those claiming god exists normally express that this is not the way they claim their god exists (that he's more than an idea in their minds--although they sure haven't given anyone anything but ideas in their heads to go on).

What are they defining? You are right--if all defined existent gods turn out to either not exist (as in the case of Jehovah) or not to be gods (as in the case of Pantheism), that may be defined as a "human failure"--but it's also a reality that we're left with a nonexistent "god" in that case--because nobody can seem to explain or define in any way anyone can understand or examine, what it is that actually exists--what it is that is being labeled as "god."

That being the case, what does it mean to say "god exists"? It means nothing at all unless we have something to examine in the objective, consensus, existent reality.

And again, how do you explain ex-Christians? My coffee mug manifests to me. I can't imagine myself "not believing" my coffee mug exists--since it manifests. And yet this seems to happen quite often with ex-believers and their god. Compared to my mug, god's existence seems to be quite tenuous.

For the record: unless he (snicker) proves otherwise — and hey, he's not under my authority at all — it seems reasonable to conclude that our most recent anonymous Christian commenter may very well be Dan Marvin. So I'll be moderating future comments from him carefully and either denying or approving them based on how they go. Anon has already as much as told us we don't have to take him seriously as he doesn't think he has to back up anything he claims. So, with no more credibility to his lack of a name, it would seem further comments of the kind already received today would accomplish nothing other than the feeding of an especially dim troll.

In the event anon is Dan, well, we all know Dan is a pathological liar with a severe set of personality disorders, who always claims that I unfairly censor him and have banned him simply for his views (or, in his moments of self-flattering childishness, that I'm just intimidated by his brilliance). In fact, he was banned for rank dishonesty, and because his juvenile behavior had simply become so offensive to literally every one of our regular readers that he had to go.

Dan announced, in one of his last comments, that he would go away and stop bothering us (after two months of increasingly bizarre and hysterical posts here) if we managed to refute his latest brilliant evidence for God, which we did with little effort. He then went back on his word, telling us his offer was just an April Fools joke, and went on posting more of his usual absurd gibberish. What he didn't expect was that I would take him at his word, and so when he reneged on his promise to go away at last, I instituted comment moderation and banned him. (I tried IP blocking, but that didn't work too well. It's one feature that blogger.com really needs to improve.) So he's entirely to blame for his persona non grata status, though, like most people with personality disorders, he throws the blame for his own actions upon anyone else.

Dan has, on several occasions since, tried to comment here anonymously. Thing is, his pathology is so pronounced that his posts are generally easy to recognize most of the time. So, working under the likelihood that Dan is back, I'll be moderating with care.

Just not believing or what anyone says about God doesn't work as an excuse and besides all of creation itself is the "ID" of God (You said "Not only have you not shown me anything whatsoever in the way of evidence (even comparable to a driver's license) for the existence of your God,").

The word "denomination" comes from the same root word as denominator in fractions, which means to divide.

"ism"- changes the root word into a system of thought, a way of looking at things, or a worldview.

So religion and denominations are divided systems of thought. Do you believe that is what God wanted or is man made?

You said "Again, you're wrecking what meager shreds of credibility you have left with everything you write..moron..You lack a number of essentials that most people at least manage to develop to a basic, functioning degree by the time they reach adulthood: you possess neither honesty nor personal integrity, you don't know how to distinguish between a fact and a belief, you don't understand how knowledge and understanding is gained or how to tell the difference between truth and lies, and you don't seem to comprehend or even to care all that much about what you claim to believe about your God."

I said "If I tell you your girlfriend(boyfriend) is cheating on you and I saw it with my own eyes, it is just information I am passing on to help you."

Then you go off in an angry rage about my credibility and such but here was what I was getting at. You are in denial as you probably would be with your girlfriend cheating on you. Remember though, I said I saw it with my own eyes. I have credible concrete evidence but again see how you are in denial of that FACT. So go ahead let you and your girlfriend sue me and when we get into court I will present my evidence and then your girlfriend can choke through her evidence. Then she will lose and you will lose your girlfriend in a very public forum...hypothetically of course. All you had to do is trust in your friends who really had your best interest in mind. (in reality I would go to her first and make her tell you, but I digress)

Do you think your argument would work when you are facing Him on Judgement Day?

Sorry TracieH I will read and answer your post later...Just found out my wife has to go into emergency sugary for brain tumor. Yuck will be out for some time.

Take care Martin I still love you enough to tell you your wrong there is God even if He will not allow scientific evidence. But if you want evidence of God's footprint there is all sorts of that. Just like there is evidence of Gravity's footprint. Sorry got to pack. Christians out there please pray for me and my wife.

First let me say that our latest anonymous does not appear to be Dan Marvin. The IP address doesn't match. So this is really sad. It appears that there is another person on this Earth as crippled between the ears as Dan is.

I suppose it is true that I have resorted to the personal attack (a somewhat different thing from ad hominem — you should try looking it up sometime). But then, when you're dealing with someone being aggressively idiotic, it's hard not to call them on it. Mea culpa. All I can suggest to anon is if he doesn't like being called an idiot he should stop being an idiot.

Just not believing or what anyone says about God doesn't work as an excuse and besides all of creation itself is the "ID" of God (You said "Not only have you not shown me anything whatsoever in the way of evidence (even comparable to a driver's license) for the existence of your God,").

Yawn yourself. More unsubstantiated claims from a guy who says he doesn't have to substantiate his claims. Why should I take this seriously? Either present evidence that your God exists, and that all creation is its "ID," or I will continue to refrain from believing you with complete justification. Once more with feeling: If you want me to believe your claims, you must back them up with evidence. I am under no obligation to believe what you say just because you say it. I would think a 6-year-old could grasp this basic concept. I'm sorry you just don't seem to be bright (or honest) enough to.

The word "denomination" comes from the same root word as denominator in fractions, which means to divide.

"ism"- changes the root word into a system of thought, a way of looking at things, or a worldview.

So religion and denominations are divided systems of thought. Do you believe that is what God wanted or is man made?

I don't believe God wants anything. I have no evidence God exists. Anyway, how is any of this relevant to anything? You tried to claim Christianity wasn't a religion, and I straightened you out on your definitions. Nothing you wrote above refutes that. Just more hand waving.

Then you go off in an angry rage about my credibility and such but here was what I was getting at. You are in denial as you probably would be with your girlfriend cheating on you. Remember though, I said I saw it with my own eyes. I have credible concrete evidence but again see how you are in denial of that FACT.

Cripes, why is it so frickin' had for fundies to grasp the simplest concepts!? Look, I will try to explain this again, but I fear explaining things to you is a lost cause.

Let's say you really did see my girlfriend cheating. Fine. You really saw it. But to convince someone else that you have seen something that they haven't seen, then in order to get them to believe you, you'll need to provide something more than just your say-so. Now, depending on how close a relationship you have with someone (say, it's your brother), then in those cases, your word alone may be good enough — although, if you happened to be wrong or mistaken, that trust could wind up damaged.

But to everyone else, more evidence than just "I saw it, you'll have to believe me" is going to be asked for. In a court of law, it's called "hearsay," and it's inadmissable as evidence for that very reason.

So yeah, I do jump your case about your lack of credibility, because you seem to think you never have to prove anything you say to anyone. Look, you may very well be the most unimpeachably truthful person on Earth (though given things you've said in previous posts, I'm inclined to doubt it), but even a paragon of honesty would be required to prove a claim if the person hearing it felt he needed proof. And frankly, an honest person wouldn't have a problem with providing more evidence than just his word. An honest person would have no problem saying, "Look, I know it's hard for you to believe I saw your girlfriend cheating, so here, look at these pics I took with my cellphone camera." An honest person — a truly honest person — has nothing to fear from being asked for the proof of his claims. When you realize how many fundamentalists and apologists like yourself go into apoplexy at the mere thought that you might bear some burden of proof for your claims, one would think you could see why your credibility and honesty is called into question.

So again I say: if you think I am in denial about your God's existence, then present your evidence and, if it is credible, my denial will go away.

So go ahead let you and your girlfriend sue me and when we get into court I will present my evidence and then your girlfriend can choke through her evidence.

Huh? Whoa! Wait a second! just a minute ago you said this:

If I tell you your girlfriend(boyfriend) is cheating on you and i saw it with my own eyes, it is just information I am passing on to help you. I am not burdened to prove it to you at all. If I tell you I won the lotto and you say prove it. I would just say nope. I am not under your authority at all. [Emphasis added.]

So hang on. First you say you are under no obligation to back up your claims with evidence. Then you reveal that you would present evidence in court!? WTF? Why wait? if you actually have evidence you are capable of presenting, why, unless you are a completely dishonest person, would you refuse to present it in the first place, thus eliminating all doubt and any grounds that someone might have to sue you for slander in the first place!?

You probably don't realize this, but you've just revealed yourself to be about the most morally bankrupt person it is possible to be. You've basically admitted that your sole motivation in life is personal self-interest. You want us to believe that you'd tell someone their girlfriend was cheating out of the goodness of your heart, to "help" them. But when pressed to back your claims up, you would withhold the requested evidence until an opportunity presented itself (in this example, a lawsuit) for you to achieve personal gain.

Interesting. I must admit I've never encountered anyone who wore their inner corruption on their sleeve like you do before. Wow.

As for trusting my friends who have my best interests at heart...you aren't my friend, and I wouldn't have someone like you as a friend. For someone to be my friend, they'd have to be trustworthy. You've disqualified yourself on that score ages ago. I might believe a friend who told me my girlfriend was cheating on me (though I'd still demand proof), but I wouldn't believe someone as dishonest as you.

Take care Martin I still love you enough to tell you your wrong

No you don't. You love yourself and your self-righteousness and feelings of piety. Sorry, but I've seen your type too many times to count.

...there is God even if He will not allow scientific evidence.

Special pleading fallacy again. And anti-scriptural, if you believe the stories about the burning bush, the Red Sea, the Damascus thing...all the stories where your God is said to have manifested himself right in front of someone. He did the Road to Damascus thing once. Seems he could do it again if he really wanted to.

But if you want evidence of God's footprint there is all sorts of that.

But to everyone else, more evidence than just "I saw it, you'll have to believe me" is going to be asked for. In a court of law, it's called "hearsay," and it's inadmissable as evidence for that very reason.

There once was a man who thought he was dead. His family tried mightily to convince him that he was not dead, but he would not be persuaded. Finally, in desperation, they took him to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist asked him whether or not dead men bleed. The man thought for a moment and said, “No, dead men do not bleed.” Immediately the psychiatrist stuck him in the finger with a pin, and some blood came out. The man looked down at his arm with a shocked look on his face and said "Well what do you know, Dead men DO bleed.” Taken from Sye TenB

No matter what you believe God is responsible for the outcome, be it repentance or hardening. I pray in your case it is repentance.

Thanks for the words for my wife, fortunately we have something more glorious then what you offered (luck).

TracieH

It disturbs me that you said "Anything you can tell me about your god is a mere human claim. And anything you have accepted about god comes from a mere human claim (either your own claims or someone else's)."

So if not humans where do you get any information from? I know you hate Bible verses but it applies to the credibility of eye witnesses that saw what happend. 1 Corinthians 15:1-9

Gee, more lame analogies and works of fiction instead of good arguments or evidence. What a surprise! Well, this reminds me of you, anon.

Anyway, if the story reminds you of me, let alone that it is any kind of accurate metaphor for the conversation we've been having, then that simply goes to show, once more, that you don't possess the capacity to understand anything whatsoever I was trying — over and over and over and over in the clearest way I possibly could — to explain to you. There's no reason anything I explained could not have been comprehended by a grade schooler. That it's so hard for you is kind of pitiful. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not hard for smart people to grasp.

Why is your stupid little story a bad analogy? Because the rational act of not believing in the existence of magic supernatural beings for which there is no credible evidence offered (indeed, if you ask for such evidence, you will be stubbornly refused, at least by self-satisfied deluded prats like anonymous) is not comparable to the irrational act of believing something for which definite evidence can be provided to refute the belief. Sorry you're too dumb to understand this, but then your list of extremely basic points that you fail to comprehend seems to be a pretty long one, doesn't it?

No matter what you believe God is responsible for the outcome, be it repentance or hardening.

No he isn't, anon! Harvey the Invisible Rabbit is responsible. It's true. If you don't believe me, you're just like a man who believes he's dead when he's really alive! Don't ask me to prove it. That just shows how blind you are! You have to take my word for it. That should be good enough for you. So there! You better go to Harvey on his terms, before it's too late!

Thanks for the words for my wife, fortunately we have something more glorious then what you offered (luck).

Yes, you have your invisible friend. I had one when I was three. Anyway, I hope he comes through for you. After all, he didn't see fit to prevent the ailment from happening in the first place. At least I'm glad to see you're relying on medical science to fix it. Though if it is fixed, your invisible friend will get all the credit, won't he? Oh well, don't forget to thank Harvey too, while you're at it. Harvey loves you, and he wants to bless you with his Magic Carrot.

So if not humans where do you get any information from? I know you hate Bible verses but it applies to the credibility of eye witnesses that saw what happend.

Hahaha! I do love me these self-contradicting Christians. I mean, weren't you the guy who just said this?

Remember if you go to man to show you God you will be disappointed forever.

So we aren't supposed to rely on man...and then suddenly, we are! Ah, what fun!

I'm going to have fun with this hilarious site you linked to as well. I'll make my refutation of it in its own post.

Forget it people, this Anon guy's drugged up to this eyeballs in Gawd. He simply can't think straight. Personally, I'm embarrassed for this poor idiot. He is impervious to clear thinking and rationality. I really shouldn’t bother trying to knock a bit of sense into him. But I might as well (it’s just so much fun).

"OK front man. Now count how many times you said "I" and you may begin to understand why you haven't found God. It isn't about you, it's about Him and His authority, not yours."

Right, so you want him to convert to your grovelling inferiority complex in front of Sky-Fairy, but at the same time it has nothing to do with him? He shouldn’t even evaluate your claims; just jump right in and trust you (you must be a certified moron if you expect ANYONE to take that seriously)? Perhaps it's more to do with you: you're so afraid of rational argument that you have to hide behind these piss-poor "arguments" and revert to emotional blackmail and special pleading.

"Or are you here to wage War against Jesus Christ the Lord of the Universe?"

What is this, an episode of Transformers? Do you have ANY idea how stupid that sounds?

"I ask "what is your name"

Martin says "Martin"

I say "I don't believe you"

Martin says "here is my ID"

I say "that doesn't prove anything" "

Because obviously there’s as much riding on Martin’s name as there is on the existence of God; “therefore” if we take Martin’s word for his name, we should – to be “fair” – believe in God. Ah, the subtlety of the fundamentalist mind, ladies and gentleman. You want us to dedicate our lives to what YOU believe; yet you can’t back up why we should believe it in the first place. Apart from, well…that you believe it. Yep, really compelling. Try thinking at an adult level now, and follow this through: if the stakes are so high, you should come forward with at least a bit of evidence so that we can be assured that we’re not just taking your word for it. It's clear that all that religion pumped into your head has rotted your brain. It's really pathetic, but what's more pathetic is that you can't see it. You live in a fantasy world and expect others to go along with it, yet you feel no obligation to be held responsible for your claims! Talk about narcissistic. You don't strike me as a good person, quite frankly. There is something disturbingly sociopathic about your rants. It's no wonder: your ultimate responsibility is to an imaginary friend who inhabits your thoughts but who needs people like you to sustain him. Really powerful God you've got there. Is it any wonder we have nothing but contempt for people like you?

"If I were God, I'd be embarrassed to have you as one of my followers. If you can't even give an unbeliever any good evidence — hell, even any good arguments — for your God's existence, why are you bothering to come here? Why are you wasting our time? Why are you wasting your own life, if your beliefs mean so little to you?"

I agree. Why do these cretins always have to drag God down to their level of pettiness and banality? I mean, who would want to worship that? It's not even worthy of respect.

"Do you think your argument would work when you are facing Him on Judgement Day?"

Nice, just bring out the threats. Thanks for admitting that your faith has nothing to hold itself up by other than intimidation through the prospect of eternal punishment. What's sad is that you're an adult, yet you expect others to buckle to threats of a place you have presented not a shred of evidence for.

1 Corinthians 15:1-9 and Romans 1:19-20 are plenty of evidence, eye witness evidence, but according Martin that is hearsay which is not true it is admissible in court and would stand to be credible but not in your world of denial. 500 or so people saw miracles and the Resurrection (after) and it happen collectively. You are all in denial.

Liu claimed "You live in a fantasy world and expect others to go along with it, yet you feel no obligation to be held responsible for your claims! "

Now that is what I call the pot calling the kettle black.

"Faith is thought of as something that one believes blindly - with no supporting evidence. However, this viewpoint does not represent biblical Christianity. Contrary to what many non-believers think, the Bible does not teach blind faith. In fact, the Bible actually tells believers to test everything.The Bible teaches a rational faith, based upon knowledge and refined through testing. God values truthfulness to a high degree and wants us to know the truth about his creation, the nature of His being and His scriptures." (1 Thessalonians 5:21,Proverbs 18:15,Job 38:36,Luke 1:3-4) to name just a few.

Borrowed that from God and Science.

Also Liu said "You don't strike me as a good person, quite frankly."

Quite frankly I agree with you 100% we all fall short of God's glory, never take just my word.

Also "It's no wonder: your ultimate responsibility is to an imaginary friend who inhabits your thoughts but who needs people like you to sustain him."

This, my friend, is pure ignorance on your part.

Liu said "Thanks for admitting that your faith has nothing to hold itself up by other than intimidation through the prospect of eternal punishment."

I said no such thing. Read 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and Romans 3:19 please.

"Why do these cretins always have to drag God down to their level of pettiness and banality?"

Now that I agree with because we cannot even begin to explain God's glory. The Catholic church probably burned Galileo at the stake because he said the earth revolves around the sun. They injected their beliefs on others to the point of murder. Well look what God did to expose to the world about the Catholic church. Remember today's religions is man made and not of God. We are in the sabbath of Jesus we are in His rest. The NT never even has the word "church' in it at all, ever. (ekklesia translates to assembly, not even "the assembly" either. Greek word "kyridakon" is not even in the Bible which means religious meeting place.)

Your surgeon's name was Jesus? What a nice coincidence. Same name as your imaginary god-man. [/snark]

Anyway, I'm glad it went well. And since you can't be bothered to give credit to the fine team of doctors who labored hard and actually were the ones who took care of your wife, I'll do it for you. Nice work, folks.

Anon, you're in no position to say this to anyone here, and that you do so is a further indication of your innate dishonesty, hypocrisy, and moral bankruptcy.

All through this idiotic discussion, you have simply demanded we believe your God claims and told us flat out you have no obligation to show supporting evidence. We are simply expected to show blind faith in what you say. Then you whip out a quote from one of the silliest apologetics sites on the web flatly contradicting your own position — claiming, in effect, that Christianity is based on lts of evidence — and wave it around as if it supports rather than baldly contradicts everything you've said up to now. These continuing displays of rabid anti-intellectual chaos you hit us with does not speak well to your ability to think in the simplest, straightest line.

"Quite frankly I agree with you 100% we all fall short of God's glory, never take just my word."

The standard excuse for every sociopath who invokes God, to allow himself to remain a sociopath, thumb his nose at everyone and still claim the moral high horse. Someone said on this blog that the reason thieves are so paranoid about their own property getting stolen is because they think that everyone else is like them. I suspect you either believe, or have an overwhelming emotional need to believe, that since we all "fall short of God's glory", everyone has to be dragged down to your level. That way, honest comparisons won't need to be made and your moral corruption won't be exposed for people to see. But allow me to make one regardless: most people I know are head and shoulders above you in terms of ethical outlook, sincerity, honesty, integrity and curiosity. Never mind God (the only benchmark a fundamentalist sociopath sees as worthy of consideration): you fall short of them as decent and intelligent human beings.

"I said no such thing."

You say it every time you bring out the tired, childish "eternal consequences" card. It shows you have nothing more secure upon which to stand, so you try to short-circuit rational thinking with fear, the only thing you apparently understand.

By the way, your wife's recovery had nothing to do with Jesus. It had everything to do with modern medical science, and thank goodness for the dedicated men and women who strive towards excellence in their fields to improve the human condition. Or do they also have to be dragged down to your level? Please realise that there is zero probability of any of us entertaining that notion.

Martin wrote: “Among other things, you will notice that anon is now attempting to portray his position as being that he's got gobs of proof, but no matter what proof he offers, I will not accept it.”

Apologists do this frequently. On yesterday’s show, someone called to ask why I don’t believe god doesn’t exist. I held up a coffee mug and said something along these lines, “Here is my coffee mug, it exists. Existence means manifestation, God does not appear to manifest.” He said, “Oh, so you don’t believe in god, because you can’t see him!” I said, “No, I can’t see electrons, but we can see them manifest in experiments where they are shot through metal walls.” It’s the same, really, with things like sound. I don’t “see” sound, but it manifests to me audibly. I don’t see wind, but it manifest to me in a tactile fashion. They all still manifest, though, in consensus, objective, examinable reality. God does not manifest in any way that we can examine in objective, consensus reality. Weirdly—everything else that we define as “existing” seems to have no trouble meeting that criteria. If I had told the caller that Harvey the invisible rabbit was sitting between Matt and I, I have little doubt he’d doubt me because Harvey doesn’t manifest in objective, consensus reality—and we can’t examine Harvey. He called me delusional. And yet, I should believe in things I can’t examine, or I’m closed minded. I believe MANY things exist, down to minute germs—because they manifest in the way I’ve described above. If god can’t manifest so much as a germ—in objective, consensus, examinable reality…then what are we really saying when we say “god exists”? It seems we mean nothing like what we mean when we say anything else in the universe exists. It seems god exists in the same exact way that “nothing” exists—however, we’re not supposed to say god is nothing. And that’s not logical.

Anon wrote: “It disturbs me that you said "Anything you can tell me about your god is a mere human claim. And anything you have accepted about god comes from a mere human claim (either your own claims or someone else's)."

“So if not humans where do you get any information from? I know you hate Bible verses but it applies to the credibility of eye witnesses that saw what happend. 1 Corinthians 15:1-9”

I don’t hate Bible versus, but you tell me not to rely on people, then you turn right around and direct me to Paul. I asked where you get your info if not humans, and you quote Paul. And in the height of irony, Paul ends up referring me to still more people, claiming that hundreds of people are making claims about Jesus/god.

If this is where you’re getting your info, those are people.

Not only that, but there are even more people, who are living today, who testify to being abducted by alien visitors from other planets. Are you so accepting of those eyewitnesses? Why would I reject first-hand eye witness claims of alien abductees, but accept Paul’s heresay claims of zombie gods?

I went to the “proof god exists.” It first defined absolute truth as the following:

Facts are statements that can be true or false. If I make a claim of fact, “My chair wobbles,” it is either true or false. The site defines “absolute truth” by presenting statements of fact. In that way, I agree some things can be as true as we know how to verify.

It asked me if laws of logic exist, but laws of logic do not always coincide with reality. Example: Fairies do not exist is a practical reality; however, logically speaking, such a statement on the existence of fairies can be made—depending on how we define fairies (if we say they are magical and can only be seen when the decide, for example).

They make a further error in their statement that “absolute moral laws exist.” They test this by asking my personal opinion on certain moral dilemmas. My opinion on what is right doesn’t constitute a moral law—as they are defining it. In fact, they seem to be confusing morals with mores/laws—rules as applied to societies rather than to people. If I think it’s wrong to eat meat—does that become moral law for anyone else? Of course not.

They gave the following choice:

“Molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong.” This is incorrect, because my opinion is not a statement of any sort of “absolute” morality. I do not consider it right—but that’s my morality. There are definitely others who disagree with my opinion on this. We see them in the news daily. The other choice at the site was “Molesting children for fun could be right.” Since I know many people—specifically those who molest children—consider it OK to do, I know that there are people who think it’s “right.” To these people, then, the action is “right” and “moral”—so it is “right” to these people. However, this is very different than me saying that I think it’s right for them to do it. I’m willing to enact laws to stop them, because I think it’s disharmonious to society, and I live in that society along with many other vested people who will back me up enough to make this action illegal.

The site asks: “If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him?” What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you?

This is easy. Each society has it’s own laws. We see this in reality. People work these things out in their social groups, just as other social animals do—like dogs or wolves or other primates. We see animals, including people, do this all the time. Mores/laws are flexible, they are sometimes enacted or repealed. Society takes this responsibility. So, I’m confused by the question. It appears that one would have to be totally divorced from reality to even ask such a thing? Can’t they observe what happens around them in reality?

And I don’t oppose these people “morally”—I oppose them legally. So, I’m confused about that question as well. Telling someone “I don’t think this is moral” has no effect whatsoever. While passing and enforcing laws does have an effect. Why would I waste my time making moral arguments to change someone’s mind, when I can effect actual change immediately via laws?

In regard to the idea that others can impose their “morality” on me (they actually can’t—they can impose laws on me, but not morality. I can lock up a molester, but I can’t change his feelings about whether what he did was right or wrong—I can’t force my morality on him. However, society allows behaviors that some people think are immoral, and they make things illegal that many people think are moral. Again, the question doesn’t reflect reality. Society DOES do this in the form of laws. Is this site advocating anarchy? When laws are too burdensome for people to bear, our Declaration of Independence addresses exactly how to handle it:

“…all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

This site is flawed, and I don’t believe it’s going to offer me any compelling proof of god. I mean, for goodness sake, I can’t even agree with their unrealistic primary claims?

"I must have some sort of conviction that a god exists. And I do not."

from what i can see, your main beef with most God-believing people is that they don't give "proof" of God. Am i correct?

I do believe in God. Here is why. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest detective character Sherlock Holmes once said, "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

And from the Scientific records, it seems to me that the only possibility that remains is that there must be a Designer. From the complexity of the single cell, to the systems of any living creature working together in harmony, with all the unique features that each creature has, i see no way that Science can account for these things.

From the complexity of the single cell, to the systems of any living creature working together in harmony, with all the unique features that each creature has, i see no way that Science can account for these things.

The classic argument from ignorance fallacy. "I can't understand it, therefore God." In fact you should be entertaining the notion that the reason you don't see how science can account for the complexity of life is that you haven't studied, and have no expertise (or even passing knowledge) in the relevant sciences.

And anyway, who would have Designed your Designer? If complexity requires design, then your Designer would have to be at least as complex, if not more so, than the lifeforms it designed. So the Designer would have to have been designed as well -- QED. Now you have the problem of infinitely regressing super-designers, don't you?

You may very well be right that i have no expertise in such sciences, but i do have some (however little) knowledge. i know that the features of a woodpecker, for example, his tongue that wraps around his skull and actually is attached at the back of his head, and his harder-than-average beak, and his strong tail feathers that serve to prop him up, and his extra strong talons which he uses to hold himself to a tree, i cannot see how Evolution or any science can show how he came up with all these at once. for of course he would have to, or he would not have been able to survive in the capacity of a woodpecker. but enough about woodpeckers. If you have some "passing knowledge" in these relevant sciences, please share it with me.

As for your second question, i see the question, if God created everything then Where did God come from?Of course, the Evolutionist theory of the Big Bang leaves the same unanswered question. If everything exploded out of one small bit of infinitesimal matter, where did that matter come from?neither of these questions are answerable unless you believe that the infinite is possible. my question then is, do you believe the infinite is possible?

...i cannot see how Evolution or any science can show how he came up with all these at once.

Yes, but this is why I pointed out you were using the argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't see how something might work doesn't mean there isn't a well-established understanding of how it works developed over many years of research and study. In fact, I can point to one mistake you make in your example: it is almost 100% unlikely the woodpecker came up with all those cool woodpeckery features "all at once." Evolution will tell you that the modern woodpecker had many many generations of ancestors, and all the features one sees in modern woodpecker species were slowly developed over time.

For some good evolution primers, try here or here. An understanding of evolutionary basics really does offer a sense of awe at the vast pageantry of life.

Of course, the Evolutionist theory of the Big Bang leaves the same unanswered question.

Another statement reflecting your lack of scientific background. The Big Bang is not an evolutionary theory, it's a cosmological one. Two entirely separate sciences.

If everything exploded out of one small bit of infinitesimal matter, where did that matter come from?neither of these questions are answerable unless you believe that the infinite is possible. my question then is, do you believe the infinite is possible?

Well, it's possible!

Here's the kicker. We don't really know where the original matter came from, or even if it's proper to assume it "came from" anywhere. That's an aspect of science that many religious people find troubling. People want answers and certainty, and when science doesn't appear to provide them, they latch onto whatever sounds good. The origins of the universe are a fascinating field of study, but yes, there's a whole lot we still just don't know — including whether it's even conceptually valid to talk about a time "before" the Big Bang, if time itself was created by that event.

So in studying life and the universe, certainly there are gaps in our knowledge. But that's why science is such a vital exercise. We're constantly learning new things and adapting our knowledge to new discoveries and new evidence. That's a much more honest process than simply placing our ignorance on an altar and calling it God.

as for our friend the wood pecker, my point was that if he did evolve these things slowly, say he evolves a hard beak and the padding but no tongue, he can peck a hole in a log to find the little bugs to eat, but he can't eat them til he evolves a long tongue... too bad.

"We don't really know where the original matter came from, or even if it's proper to assume it "came from" anywhere."

In this sentence, substitute "God" for "the Original Matter" and it comes out to what we who believe in God say about God.

"But that's why science is such a vital exercise. We're constantly learning new things and adapting our knowledge to new discoveries and new evidence. That's a much more honest process than simply placing our ignorance on an altar and calling it God."

God and science can coexist. indeed, science, if "Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality" can be easily studied by someone who believes in God, but wants to learn just how everything God created works and is put together.

I did browse both of those links you provided, and i found that in the talkorigins.org site, despite their talk of how the first life originated, they are not sure how it could have happened either. I do not say they didn't have ideas, they just don't know for sure.

Which seems to be quite like the problems atheists have with God, they just don't know for sure.

when you get right down to it, the only difference between you and i is that one of us puts his faith in the idea that there IS a god, while the other rests on faith that there IS NOT a god.

as for our friend the wood pecker, my point was that if he did evolve these things slowly, say he evolves a hard beak and the padding but no tongue, he can peck a hole in a log to find the little bugs to eat, but he can't eat them til he evolves a long tongue... too bad.

Heh heh...oh dear. You ought to give this a quick read. There has been a lot of creationist misinformation about the anatomy of the woodpecker.

In this sentence, substitute "God" for "the Original Matter" and it comes out to what we who believe in God say about God.

Except we know that matter exists, whether or not we can say for certain what its ultimate origin was, or if it had one. We cannot say that God exists in the same way. And the truth is that believers say a lot more about God than science says about matter, not the least of which is that God is a sentient being deserving of worship, with a whole lot of rules he wants us to live by, and who maintains a really swell place called Heaven that people who follow those rules and worship him to his satisfaction get to go to in some incorporeal form after they die. You can hardly begin to draw an equivalency between the two things.

when you get right down to it, the only difference between you and i is that one of us puts his faith in the idea that there IS a god, while the other rests on faith that there IS NOT a god.

Not quite. I do not employ "faith" at all. You are the one claiming a God exists, and I am the one refraining from belief because I don't consider God's existence to be supported by credible evidence. Choosing not to believe a claim you have not been given good reasons to believe does not take an act of faith. It is simple common sense. You might as well say I have "faith" that there is no Zeus, or that the planet Saturn is not inhabited by flying purple telepathic bunny rabbits.

...despite their talk of how the first life originated, they are not sure how it could have happened either. I do not say they didn't have ideas, they just don't know for sure.

Yes, that's true. We don't know for sure how the universe care about, or why. When you don't know the answer to a question, the honest thing to do is admit you don't know, but not let that stop you from exploring the evidence.

Which seems to be quite like the problems atheists have with God, they just don't know for sure.

Newsflash: that's exactly the same problem you have. The difference is that you use this process called "faith" to grant yourselves the permission to believe in God anyway, in spite of not being able to say you know for sure. I'd say the distinct difference between the theist and atheist position is that theists think it's acceptable to plug in gaps in knowledge with "faith," while atheists know it isn't.

This guy basically says that the only codes there are are a result of a concious living mind, and DNA is no exception.therefore, DNA must have come from a conscious mind.If this is true DNA could not have randomly occured. Its a pretty interesting claim.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.